Which is the best of the best? Vote for your product of the year

Which is the best of the best? Vote for your product of the year

Last month you voted for the best gear in five categories, and now's your chance to let us know which of the winning products was the most impressive. With almost 30,000 votes cast already we know that you've got plenty of opinions about which cameras and lenses stood out, but we want more! We want to know which one you thought was the absolute best.

Click through for a look at the category winners from our five classes - Best lens, best DSLR / SLT, best fixed-lens compact camera, best mirrorless interchangeable lens camera and best enthusiast zoom compact. The category winners are presented here in alphabetical order.

Voted for oly e-m1 in the poll and with my wallet. It's the camera that has brought me back to photography. I absolutely love it and love the fact that i can literally carry it everywhere and it isn't a burden.

EM1 - I've got it, I love it, but I didn't vote for it in 'best of the best'.

My vote went to the Sigma 18-35, even though I'm never likely to own one and have left APSc behind. It's a product that's a bit of a game-changer and what's more it's sensibly priced. I wish Sigma made more lenses for m4/3.

Part 1Jyrki,Unfortunately, my own criteria, as I learned it (learnt?, if you are British) throughout school and engineering college, does not allow me to compare apples and oranges.How can I compare a Pentax DSLR to a Sigma lens, then vote for the better product!! That's beyond me.

If you do some simple statistics on the votes, you will find the voting has been very much like the screwed-up USA's presidential (and other elected officials) vote. Almost always along the party lines.

I have done my own, first finding the ratios of the owners and comparing them to votes results, then some more, ..., and finally by summing up all Owners, Wants, and Hads.Amazingly, the votes are very much along the "party" lines!

Part 2So this vote must be taken with a large cube (not just a grain) of salt.

I am not doubting that all these products are wonderful products, but the vote is simply not a valid one, in my humble opinion.

I don't own any of them, and I have no intention of giving up on, or switching what I have. So I can't vote on any.

Maybe, just maybe, if all the products were from the same category (all DSLR's, for example), then the vote might be more meaningful. But for now, it doesn't help me that the EM-1 has more votes than the Sigma lens!

Thank you, and thanks to DPR, keep up the good work, but hire a new statistician :) or stick to technical reviews!

NEX was also the first APS-C mirrorless. But in the end, it was just a copycat with a bigger sensor. It's not enough to reach a landmark with a camera system, the manufacturer needs to cater to it, nurture it and build it into a formidable alternative for photographers.

That's what made the E-M5 and now the E-M1 shine rather than the fledgling Panasonic G1 or the Olympus E-P1 of 4 and 5 years ago. Mature cameras in a mature system. The perfect storm.

If technology steps are counted, it is a hard choice — E-M1 and RX100 II are good upgrades of good products, with nothing essentially new involved — while the K-3 really breaks new ground, as does the A7R.

I still voted for the E-M5, as it seems to be a near perfect product. Can't see what could be further developed, unless one could imagine an even faster processor.

I just bought a K-3 and have only used it so far in in a Long Jump series with my son to test AF tracking. I was surprised that the visual quality was noticeably improved over the K-5. I was not expecting much of a noticeable difference to the image quality, because I thought my tele lenses (Pentax DA* 60-250/F4 & Sigma 70-200/F2.8 II HSM) would be limiting the resolution. The AF is significantly improved but, even so, the initial shots from the camera immediately looked better.

This small camera is not light - it really feels sturdy.

Some forum members are claiming that there's a conspiracy for Pentax lovers to vote as a block. I'm not aware of that. Any brands' fans could do this if they were interested. I suppose it's harder this year for general Canikon users to muster up much enthusiasm.

Canikon wants you to go FF so hopefully you'll end up spending more and where their profit margins apparently are larger. But not everyone's lusting after FF.

In my opinion (next, next, next)......the camera of the year (next, next, next, next)......is probably the (next, next, next, next)......Panasonic GM1 because (next, next, next)......of how it combines the (next, next, next, next)......portability factor with great image quality perhaps the (next, next ,next)......best of any m4/3 camera so far.

So what does this particular EVF give us? Full brightness DOF preview, instant zoom manual focus override with focus peaking. The best semi-pro information display in the business, and even shot playback if you desire. Welcome to the future friends. I just love mine; i just love it!

The Olympus is a good choice for a win in the category, though the Pentax is a close second. Some might have argued Sony's A7R should have been included, but if you've handled it, you'll probably agree it feels insubstantial, plus it doesn't include in-body stabilization which for 36mp should have been a must. The point and shoot RX100II camera really shouldn't have been included in the group.

I voted for the Sigma 18-35mm with my own money. It's an amazing lens for the price. A lens that I will probably never sell. If I had to nitpick, I wish it came with weather sealings and image stabilisation.

MFT camera that has better dynamic range, in most cases better noise performance then Canon crop cameras, its also more customizable, lighter, better to use then anything that Canon or Nikon released EVER.

It is not the question of absolute best image quality, but that the image quality of the gear in question is 'good enough'.

Image quality now is a matter of diminishing returns because other factors come into play, like convenience and ease of use, or lens availability.

For most people in most situations, your average $1000 interchangeable lens camera of any sort or brand will be good enough.

Otherwise we'd all be carrying around medium format backs. It is rapidly becoming even more of a fringe case to require something 'more' than the intermediate setups, whether it is 36 megapixels or 14 stops of DR or 14fps or 63 AF points.

not demanding? i shoot the omd's in monsoon weather, low light, fast paced events as well. anything more demanding is niche by any standards.

IQ is only one of a number of considerations and by all accounts by reviews and user experience in real world, the top line m4/3 IQ is more than good enough, certainly competitive against apsc. the difference between IQ of FF, APSC and m4/3 is not as wide as you may think.

there are many other factors at play in the photographic process that are just as important. when you consider the overall performance of an EM1 is very close to the performance of something like a 1DX with IQ reaching, maybe 95% close to it... at its price, build quality, handling and features, the gap is nearly non existent.

Kind of weird poll. Meaningless. One way of attracting website hits though. Plus it has the virtue of obscuring the seemingly embarrassing fact of the K3 coming out top in its centrally important category.

I don't feel the level of interest I used to have in DPR - the commercial imperative seems closer to the surface than in earlier times.

mauritsvw - we have always done all we can to ensure advertising has no influence on editorial policy. Advertising isn't discussed, factored-in or even known about when we're deciding what to write about or when.

The main factors affecting the order in which we review things are: availability of cameras, availability of reviewers and how many people we think will find a review interesting.

The most perfect camera of year is Sony Rx1R. 2013 was the year when a lot of good cameras had appeared. I have bought many of them, and after testing my rating is: 1. Sony Rx1R 2. Olympus E-M1 3. Nikon DF. The companies of 2013 year are: 1. Sony 2. Fuij. 3. Canon

I did the reverse, after much deliberating! Own neither, but while the K-3 was a technological break-through, the E-M1 was close to perfection, based an already good product! Maybe Olympus will introduce sensor-shaking, too?!

Even the A7's combined (with the NEX5 eliminated to concentrate the Sony vote with one single camera) would still have made Sony second. The math was pretty clear there. The E-M1 had too much of a lead despite having to share the spotlight with 3 other m43 cameras.

The E-M1 won the previous poll and will likely win this one. Deal with it.

This poll has already been answered by the previous polls, so I can't help but question the motive behind it — especially since, as far as I'm aware, this is the first year one of the leading cameras (let alone the all-out winner) hasn't already received its full review.Pentax K-3....................2529 votes (31.4% of the 8054 votes in its poll)Fuji X100s.....................2423 votesOlympus OM-D E-M1......2238 votesSony RX100...................1555 votesSigma 1.8/18-35............1331 votesI hate to keep kicking a dead horse but is this an attempt to avert attention while you finish up with the K-3?I mean no disrespect, DPR, I just feel the question needs to be put out there. If you guys were just waiting for the firmware update or the release of the Flucard for wireless tethering, that's totally fine. It would be nice if you would let us know that sort of thing is all I'm saying.

Seems like when you limit choices and pit gear that wasn't facing each other before, people change their votes accordingly, changing the results. K-3 can fend off other DSLR's, but can't win against a mirrorless camera. Must have been a weak year for DSLR's if the K-3 came up on top..

Or it's old news and everyone who was stoked to vote on their new DLSRs is now out shooting rather than checking back on every story on the homepage of DPR. Weak year for DSLRs? Have you read that camera's spec sheet? It reads like a manual for and epitome of listening to feedback from your customers — something buyers of every brand could appreciate given the lack of quality APS-C offerings from the big three. Non-Pentaxians vote for the K-3 as a vote for hope in the DSLR industry for that reason.BTW, ditched my Nikon, my Canon and much film gear for the K-3. Should be here any day.

We've already polled our readers on standout gear in five categories, this is the final poll to find the one that you think is the most impressive of all, across the categories.That is all.

When it's done, we'll publish the results, and some people will be happy, and some will be unhappy, and some will claim that we're all corrupt, and some will despair that we don't write as many reviews as we used to, even though it's not true.

I'm certainly not trying to accuse anyone of being corrupt, just asking for a little transparency if there is something at issue here. As a fellow journalist who's made mistakes before, this poll had the familiar odour of haste and shame like any given Sunday morning — and, as far as I'm aware (please correct me if I'm wrong) is the first time DPR has had such a "Best of the Best" year-end poll, as well as, again, the first year one of the leading cameras (let alone the all-out winner) hasn't already received its full review. Given all that and the fact that the Df was released a month later and received its review in time for the results story raised suspicion.Again, I mean no disrespect and don't want to cause any conspiracy theories out of turn, but as was written by Mr. Joinson in the open New Years letter from DPR to the masses, we the readers are here to "[keep] us honest with your no-holds-barred feedback."Thanks for the timely and relevant response, eh.-Raj

I'm more likely to own a K-3, but I voted for the Sigma lens. This is a lens that just wasn't possible until now, and what I've heard of it has been quite favorable. Way too heavy and expensive for me, but those who need it will love it.Plus of course, it's actually been reviewed ;-)

Of course we take horrible pictures no matter the level of the new camera's craftsmanship. I the first. In the end, out of 200 images, I edit only two or three. They never become prints, only computer window appreciation. I'm a camera hoarder, and none of the lot has made me a better photographer. Me, being defensive about my cameras? Well, it goes the same for dogs & car owners. You can bitch about wife & country, but if you rap ill words about the dog or the car, they will be your enemies 'till Kingdom comes. That being said, take note: Don't you EVER talk ill about the Sony Cybershot DSC-X100 II in my presence or I'll hunt you silly!! (That is until I buy the RX10, ok)Happy New Year 2014!!

I don't understand the hate in this section. The k-3 and em-1 are more similar then different. This requires an explanation.

Pentax was the only company that made top of the line apsc lenses. These were smaller then their ff counterparts. Just take an look to the 55-135 f2.8(70-200 equiv.)

They did not make any compromise on image quality or build quality. Same for their bodies. An k3 is smaller then an d800. But it leaves nothing to be desired in terms of build quality or features.

There is of course one trade off. An smaller sensor leads to lower resolution dynamic range and depth of field control. So pentax trades image quality for bulk.

The em-1 does the exact same thing only slightly more. It trades in more in terms of image quality for more weight loss. But like the k3 no compromises on controls build or features. The only valid problem of the em-1 is price. It's an steep premium over even the em-5. It's worth it when you have some 4/3 glass though.

Ok, but whatever wins this is going to derive some benefit - if only just by the exposure. So it would be nice if somehow the selection could be representative of something, anything other than brute force.

Still, let's be realistic. It's an open vote, pre-screened only be a previous open vote. Lowest common denominator will win, de-facto. If you don't like it, just move on...

On the other hand, I do think there is something of interest here: Nikon and Canon got kicked off the list of finalists, despite an advantage in numbers. So while the list contains too many "mk 2" models for my liking, it nicely shows just how complete the shift is now away from the bipolar Canikon world, when 4-5 years ago the latest enthusiast dLSRs D90, D300, 30D, and 5D ruled around here.

I think Pentax is holding a niche market in UK especially from where this website has the most hits.So I am not surprised that that is camera on pedestal.Also it is one of the cheapest ones...So all combined that is why is "#1"

Sorry m8s...I voted Oly....I own it and I love it. the big news here is I can use my 4/3s and my MFT lenses. to me this is big news. Many great products out this year from many major manufacturers... I do not wish to take away anything from anyone. I will be picking up a Pentax as soon as the funds are there to replace my E5 but for now I still go with the EM-1.

"Gear in this story" tabulation results (own it, want it, had it) clearly shows the bias in voting. I think that this poll result cannot be taken seriously by someone looking for honest guidance to pick the best of the best, simply because the majority of respondents have no means to test all the contenders.

Since DPR have access to all the products listed, I would like the staff to share their own opinion on each product expressing their collective feelings and clearly saying why. This could be more interesting and revealing than going back and forth with "fanbois" rants.

The staff already did in their "gear of the year" feature. It included the Panasonic GM1, the Olympus EM1, the Canon SL1, the Sigma 18-35 lens and the Fuji X100s. Maybe you should search the site and do some reading.

I did some reading.What I meant is their take on five products selected by us and their significance as the most important photographic product of 2013. GM1 and SL1 are missing from this list.A7/A7R are outside of our interest reflected in earlier voting as well. My question is relate directly to the five pieces of gear in this poll.

@ Richard Franiec. It's a poll. It's not meant to provide guidance. Choose whatever product you like / interests you the most or feel free to ignore it. The buyers' guide content is quite different, and can be found here:

@ Barney Britton. So what is the value of the poll you are conducting here except of amusement and entertaining?I understand the "political correctness" of the "buyers guide" but I would still like to know what is the most significant product related to photography in 2013 in opinion of people who have basically unlimited access to every piece of new gear and why. Is this too much to ask?

"I would still like to know what is the most significant product related to photography in 2013 in opinion of people who have basically unlimited access to every piece of new gear and why. Is this too much to ask?"That was not your original question.

Most of these online polls are bogus. If you google "dpr k-3 poll" you will see Pentax fanboys had orchestrated campaign on various Pentax forums (outside DPR website) about the poll. That kind of campaign would obviously have impact on the result.

Yeah, fanboys post to a zillion forums about the poll (outside DPR website) and that will obviously have an impact on the result.

I googled what you suggested. It's not a conspiracy--they are just excited to see the K3 sweeping because they are just not used to that. Polls are supposed to be impacted by human factors. Advertising (whether by word of mouth or corporate campaign effect public opinion/polls). What did you expect. Don't you think that Nikon/Canon/Sony fanboys have impacted public opinion before? So, while I agree that the results are "pretty meaning," I don't think that is what you meant. I think that taking the time to sleuth out and blame fanboys for the K-3s' success here and not attributing anything to the K3 being a really good DSLR is pathetic. As much as I love my equipment and feel that it meets my needs, I can't help casting a jealous eye toward the K3 (and K5ii) now and then.

I know nothing about conspiracies and sort of, but I know that recently Pentax was the brand that have the highest score of costumers satisfaction over others hughes photographic companies, yes, like Sony. And that's not for nothing. Add to that a slow but constant development of reliable products with technologies just for make easy photographers discipline, and usually at affordable price.

As a happy Olympus user I do also admire Pentax for what they do. I can see why they have a higher score of costumers satisfaction. They make good camera's at a nice price point. Also the primes are well known as good and compact lenses. If I should buy a DSLR it would be a Pentax.

Look, when one photographically-oriented site made a poll for the best camera (of 2012) I got to know about it because a friend posted on our FB club page that we should go vote for Nikon.

Pentax users mobilizing for this isn't some kind of conspiracy against Canon, Nikon, Sony, whoever. This happens with every brand. And since there are only ~6% of Pentax users (to be fair, the % is higher amongst enthusiasts) out of everybody, the result actually shows that OTHER people also voted for the K-3.

Funny, Giklab, that Pentax has been "wining" all these polls for the past 5 years yet their worldwide market share is still only 2%. Amazing the entire universe seem to be voting for Pentax cameras for 5 years, but yet no one is buying them.

A poll is a poll, and it includes every factor that leads to the result, including what you mentioned "campagin". Unless you accuse DPR of acting unfairly, I don't see anything wrong with that. On the other hand, you may want to investigate why Canikon don't have die-hard fans that are eager to lauch "campaigns" to counteract the "campaign" of Pentax, if it ever exists.

TBH: No surprises. I would vote for Pentax too (if not astonishing Nikon DF release), but I would NEVER buy into Pentax system.

Why? Because as far as bodies are great - they have nothing else that would interest me, and now with Zeiss gone out of Pentax mount and infinite delays of Full Frame body I completely lost hope for it.

I voted for the E-M1 simply because from my hands on of both it and the EM-5 in stores, the ergonomics (control wheels) and superb build and industrial design shame all others. A flip forward articulating display and better video quality and video features would make me buy one. (Am a UX designer so ergonomics are my thang.)

I think Pentax are the best overall for handling (owned a K10D once), but I voted for the Oly because it does have a semi articulating display, something I believe essential having owned a GH2, NEX 5R and now the underrated Samsung EX2F compact that continues to impress me under all conditions.

I am trying to find the K-3 review, but all the links lead to the "roundup" page, which gives even less information than the previews. How come there's not a full review for a contender for "the product of the year?" Or is it simply not linked to anywhere?

My vote went to the K-3. It was a tough decision between the Omd-1 and the K-3, the K-3 won with me as I prefer OVF. Purely subjective. But lets face it - ether cameras are not really revolutionary, more an evolution over what has existed before. I like the handling of the K-3 when I had the chance to hold one in my hand. I have not handled the OMD-1 but I hope it handles better than the OMD-5 - wchich I did not like without the additionla grip. As I said purely subjective.

The only new camera this year was the Sony A7. But somehow it doesn't do it for me. And it did not make it into the finals.

I think the same as you about size and handling of recent awarded lenses. Manufacturers think that specs are enough to take good picture and enjoy it at the same time. You have to handle the dam thing, as well!!! It's like believing that big car must be better than medium or compact ones.

I agree with you on almost all points. The K-3 is very good and best between the two if one prefers an OVF. I would contend that the E-M1 (and A7) are a bit more revolutionary than the K3, however for the following reasons: 1. First "pro" oriented mirrorless (whatever that means) 2. Dual AF brings legacy optics and new pro optics together seamlessly. 3. Leaps ahead previous gen. for tracking and compatibility. 4. 5-axis is more refined than ever. 5. EVF is finally good enough to convince many skeptics (not all of course). 6. Basically, the leap in performance of mirrorless in the last 5 years is about as revolutionary as it gets. Public opinion has shifted and even die hards are adding mirrorless systems to their kits.

The K3 is a little better than the K5ii which is saying a lot since that camera was already so good. It's also saying a little since the K5ii was already so good.

Not that the K3 shouldn't be your top pick though. I agree, it's a hot camera.

next will be 'vote for the best photography product', choosing between the best camera (as chosen in this poll), the best equipment bag, the best software, the best card, the best ...then we could place the winner against the best products from other industries.in the end we'll have the best product.

K-3 for me. Olympus is sacrificing the size advantage of the M4/3 system which irc was the main reason for it existing in the first place. DPR staff are big fans of the O-MD, practically raving about it in one of their videos so I will assume it has its merits. I personally think that it will be easier to get a cleaner, bigger print from the K-3, cheaper too.Lens wise, the Sigma Art series are becoming a force to be reckoned with in the optical arena, Kudos! I am however beginning to become disappointed by the size of these uber lenses.. 18-35, 35 f/1.4 from Sigma, 58 f/1.4 from Nikon, 55 f/1.4 from Carl Zeiss are stupidly big in my opinion. It feels like they are throwing glass and bulk as a solution to limitations instead of real optical design.

E-M1 does not sacrifice any size advantage. When E-M5 came out, there were a lot of complaints about it being too small for the intended use, and how natural and great it felt with the grip on. E-M1 simply integrated the grip, fulfilling this wish. It's is still a smaller camera than DSLRs in the same class, and the lenses still give a significant reduction in weight and size over DSLRs.

there is very little sacrifice in size. like othera have said, the grip was integrated to address the problrm with the em5 being TOO small to handle comfortably. this allowed Oly to redo the control layout. what we have on the EM1 is superior control system over the em5. it's very comfortable to handle. it's light and wait for it... it's nearly the exact same size as an EM1. it's actually a shorter camera than the EM5 but slightly wider to allow a comfortable grip.

if you try the 12-40 f2.8 on the EM5 with grip, your knuckles will graze the lense barrel. it needed the extra couple mm to allow a more comfortable hold. it also needs it for the 4/3 glass.

i have both cameras. if you put the grip on the em5 and place it next to the em1, you'd be hard pressed to see any difference in size, but the handling is far superior for the extra mm increase in width.

I'm a µ4/3 user and I'm glad to see the OMD E-M1 receving such recognition. The E-M5 received similar accolades last year. Having used 35mm film cameras since 1971 before switching to digital, I have to wonder why the giants Nikon and Canon are not better represented at the forefront of camera development right now. Are we awaiting an explosion of technology from Canikon, or is something amiss at those companies?

I am very happy with the innovations in Micro Four Thirds (and from Fujifilm X and Sony E), but since Canon and Nikon DSLRs still dominate system camera sales and profits, their apparent lack of innovation might simply mean that they will only have a profit motive to take mirrorless systems seriously when those newcomers bite deeper into DSLR sales.

In particular, Canon is probably in a good position to make EOS-M a more serious competitor, by adding an EVF, dual pixel PDAF, and a few more lenses. All of which might already exist in the R&D department.

@BJL : You are correct. Canon is well-placed, with its dual pixel PDAF, to introduce a mirrorless body in DSLR style with EVF and fully compatible with all EF lenses. Interesting thought. I'd look for it at the low end first.

That's actually a really big thing... While everybody (myself included) laughed at Canon for putting out the turd that was the EOS M, I'm pretty sure Canon will get the last laugh.It's genius really. Spend as little money and time on this first product to get your feet wet, and BAM you're in'

It is dollars and cents. You get to participate in a bogus poll of gear and by doing so be exposed to advertisements for the products. DPReview sells stuff. It is more akin to Newsmax than a Gallop Poll

I have never handled a Pentax 645D yet I know it wipes the floor of all the camera's IQ listed here. Look up "Straw Man Fallacy" and that would explain the applicability of your ridiculous question.

Fact is, the K-3 is a *FAR* more capable and professional photographic tool than anything with an APS-C sensor and smaller. This is fact. Not fanboyism.

No one is saying the E-M1 is a bad camera. It's not. Except weight, there's nothing about it that really trumps the K-3, whereas the K-3 is LOADED with features that all around trounces the E-M1, AND AT A LOWER MSRP.

Seriously - put the kool-aid down. It's OK to be objective once in a while.

Viewfinder is smaller since it is an OVF from an APS-C sensor. K-3 also limits pentaprism size because it tries to be a small camera. No such limitations with the E-M1, it's an EVF that can be any size no matter the sensor and optical magnification is easier to achieve. The Sony A7's and the Sony A99 have the same advantage.

Flash synch speed is twice as slow on the Pentax. Same with max shutter speed or tilting LCD. Pure specs. check it on this very site.

K-3 is actually a fast shooter for APS-C DSLR, but EM1 can shoot faster with AF off and the buffer can shoot a few seconds longer to boot.

K-3 has respectable liveview for a DSLR but it is still a secundary feature. EM1 is a pure liveview camera and the fatest in the business. K-3 stands no chance here.

You're quick to point fingers, but slow with substance. Report back to the Pentax SLR forum and re-post what you posted here for further feedback on what to do next. You did it before.

The K-3 VF is smaller but as large as any APS-C. More importantly it is real-time optical with infinite detail, not a cheezy video representation.

The EM1 can shoot 10fps, but only in AF-S. In continuous AF, where it counts, it drops to 6 fps (tested at 4fps in DPR with a real subject).

What about the other lies you posted about miniscule buffer, inferior IBIS, crippled max shutter speed, inferior weather-sealing (???), limited customization. There's no need for heavy customization on a K-3, the controls are properly implemented, something Olympus has never figured out how to do.

Go ahead, post your nonsense in the Pentax Forums. It will be a reality check for you.

Compared to the E-M1, it's direct rival in this very poll, the K3 viewfinder is much smaller. No debate.

The idetail with AF in continuous drive was already mentionned. Pentax could have offered that same "faster" option but it doesn't, possibly because the shutter/mirror mechanism can not cope, so in the end, it is slower. Why is this even a debate?

The buffer is smaller because it fills up faster despite slower FPS. You get more shots with the Olympus before the camera slows down. No debate.

Max shutter speed is a surprising 30 seconds instead of the more common 60 seconds in other DSLR's, not just with the E-M1.

The IBIS is inferior because you can't compensate for all 5 axis and can not take handheld photos at slower shutter speeds than on the E-m1, that's why Olympus is class leading in this department. It's nice of Pentax to have IBIS, but it's just not as good.

How about debating whoever's nonsense out in the open instead in your camera brand ghetto?

You're quick to point fingers, but slow with substance. Report back to the Pentax SLR forum and re-post what you posted here for further feedback on what to do next. You did it before.

@bluevelletLOL, that was really funny read, all of it.Some people just can't cope with the facts. They (OP and Heie2) just got what they deserved.Speaking about photographic tool - you never mentioned E-M1 has the whole sensor as AF points, not only 1/9 in the middle. You never mentioned 5-axis IBIS with every single lens attached which means every single MF lens on Earth has stabilized and magnified focus peaking in EVF. Awesome.

@Heie2 - see, it's not only IQ that matters; and looking in your galleries can't help thinking that the E-M1 IQ for your needs is overkill.

Bluevellet, your last post is still full of inaccuracies. I'm not going to argue point by point in the Comments section, the forums are better for that.

The K-3 has more pro features than the EM1 and better IQ. From the DPR review of the EM1:NOT SO GOOD FOR"Sports and fast action demanding very fast burst rates, very low light, and users with little interest in customizing camera functions."

Those are some of the reasons I need a DSLR. A MILC just doesn't cut it.

"your post is full of inaccuracies, I just won't tell you what they are because of... reasons."

"In the meantime, take this excerpt from a DPR review where the E-M1 can't match a Nikon D4 in speed and low light or the simplicity of a point and shoot. It doesn't change anything about the k-3, but I have to post something!"

So first you decide you let people vote in different categories since obviously you can't really compare a compact P&S to a DSLR or a lens or pasta sauce.It started out as if someone actually used her brains.

And then once that is done, you throw it all together again?

Pasta sauce is my product of the year with hellfire missiles as runner up.The Olmypus I did not choose because they don't work either as diaphers or together with pasta.

By kahren (1 day ago)i mean, i knew that, but the question still remains :)i guess there are just too many m4/3 fanboys on lingering on this site...

I think you should say Oly fanboys. Trust me, I'm a M4/3's user, but my gear is predominantly Panasonic and I rarely even go to the forum anymore because it is over run by people that think Oly is the only camera brand that works.

For me the product of the year is the Panny GM1 and I recommend people try it out. It is sooo tiny and works great.

This vote is "pumping". Actively inventing activity on the site by regurgitating info and trying to involve users. It does not add any useful information. You can understand why they do it. But it is still user abuse.

I am surprised that "cow" was not in your comparison. I love a warm glass of milk so the cow easily wins....I suppose you could try to milk a kangaroo, but I think that would be dangerous.....any experiences, of course, to share are welcome....

I don't understand the love for the Sigma lens. The range is boring, so the only good thing is the f1.8. What do I need f1.8 for in that zoom range? Astrophotography I guess, but what else? It's too wide for indoor sports. Not wide enough for serious indoor architecture. For anything outdoors the f1.8 is irrelevant. f1.8 can't provide shallow DOF because it's a wide angle lens plus on a crop body. So what is the lens actually good for? What do you need f1.8 for at that focal range? (Sure, it's nice to have, but what is compelling about it?)

Think of it as a normal lens with a bit of wiggle room at the bottom. It's nice to have that kind of range for street shooting and F1.8 was unattainable in a zoom. If you are a kind of person who switches between a 28, 35 and a 50mm primes a lot, this could save a lot of effort and dust on the sensor.

So street photography in lower light like after dark, is that what you mean? I suppose so, although I think the lens is a little large for discreet street work. But I guess it could be useful for that.

It can do so, you just need to get close enough. An example would be a person holding a hand out in front - you want to have the hand in focus and the body in blur. The hand is very close to the camera and appears large as compared to the body, thanks to a wide angle.

btw. The object that covers 50% of a frame at 28mm F1.8 will have the same depth of focus as one that covers 50% of the frame at 200mm F1.8. The difference will be that background behind the 200mm will be enlarged and will seem to be more out of focus.

OK, sorry of course you can get shallow DOF if you get close enough to your subject. But I don't know that there is anything you need to shoot wide that say f2.8 or even f3.5 wouldn't do a sufficient job of getting some background blur if you had a close subject. Maybe it's just me but even though I do appreciate Sigma's pricing, the lens doesn't seem revolutionary or attractive to me.

I voted for Canon's 200-400 lens which even though I will never buy because it's too expensive, I felt that was a revolutionary idea and a useful and desirable lens - if I had the money and was doing safari, wildlife, bird, sports, surfing photos (and more), that would be an attractive lens. Opens up many possibilities, whereas I don't see the Sigma does.

Im not a big fan of this lens, for some of those reasons and its a bit big for street photography, but sigma have been stand out in supporting the APSC frame size, where big SLR manufactures have not, they deserve some sort go gong for that

First, it is a zoom in the normal range with relevant quality. The world is full of kit zooms of vomitable or just decent quality, and the Sigma stands out, Second, the “Art” series is very interesting, promising good to high quality at reasonable cost (at least as long as the mechanical tolerances can hold use and abuse). Enough to compell Nikon to provide a better quality 1.4 normal (and mising the target).

Those who have declared that the Sony FF A7's are clearly superior to the M4/3 EM1 (with provisos about lens availability) are advised to read this thread on LL where a successful, highly competent, professional offers an informal comparison of these two cameras.http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=85282.0Me, I'm not about to buy either...

This nontest contradicts every serious review, I have read. Olympus proudly presented some years ago the FT system, which they recently have buried. You can use with an adaptor for the not so old FT lenses, but only with some constraints. A company which is changing systems so rapidly, is not the reliable partner for me, where I invest into a system. The sensor is anyway too small. What I dislike as well is this SLR retro look mimicking a DSLR.The new Sony FE system is at first look very attractive, but there are too many question marks. The sluggish speed of operation, the very limited amount of lenses, and last but not least the same issue like the whole E mount system is suffering on: the ridiculous ratio between the size of the bodis and the longer telezooms. The new 4/70-200mm should be 3000$!!! Crazy! It's a hefty beast for the small bodies. My D600 and the 2.8/70-200mm is a much more sound combination.

"This nontest contradicts every serious review, I have read."Precisely. And its author has no direct commercial interest in the opinion he expresses. Check his website - this is someone who works in both still and video at high level with no particular commitment to any hardware other than that it does the job. I think that this is one of the most useful comparisons I've read, given the current frenzy that tends to be attached to each new major release - of which the A7's were a good example. The fact is M43 is "good enough" for almost all purposes. I have an EM5 and an extensive Nikon FX system: when someone mentions the 70-200 (which I own) my back starts hurting instantly.

I would think the DPR readership would appreciate the only product from these which is completely brand new and actually quite revolutionary - that is, the Sigma lens. Those other products (all cameras) are mostly rehashes of previous generations.

Hey no doubt all of these help make fine images, but if it's 'gear of the year', it should be the most interesting piece I think.

It seems that this is a common criticism of the OM-D E-M1, but I have to wonder if those espousing it have physically held the camera and compared it to other m4/3 cameras, particularly those with built-in viewfinders.

With both the E-M1 and E-M5 in front of me, excepting the grip on the E-M1, I honestly don't notice an appreciable difference in size. Add a grip to the E-M5 (I've found the RSS grip to nearly essential to for the E-M5 anyway) and even the grip difference becomes negligible.

Perhaps I'm missing something here, but I can't see how a few millimeters makes much of a difference, neither in packing a camera bag nor in shooting.

I think that "betraying the compactness promises of M4/3" may be a bit of an exaggeration, no?

It's a preconception. Even the name micro 43 implies small. I totally get why someone would say "too big". But to me, it doesn't betray to the "promise", it adds to it, by making the system more versatile. No one is forcing you to buy it, and there's still the "smallest as possible" trend on m43 with the EPM2 and especially the GM1 if you prefer. But you can also buy both instead of having "small" m43 and some bulkier DSLR on the side like many choose to have..

I think there was never "the compactness promise" per se, but there was unrealistic expectation brewing in the entire mirror-less hype, which prophesied cameras of insane performances and so small they only fit hands of toddlers. The whole premise was false.EM1 is a camera large enough to be used by adults and be enjoyed, and I don't understand why should be criticised if it doesn't fit the narrow frame of unrealistic expectations? In its size it comes close to a more compact DSLR size, and that is the reality of things.

You can achieve the size promise of M43 and still keep many of the E-M1's benefits with the E-PL5 plus VF4 viewfinder. Same EVF resolution and most of the features - so much better than the GM1, and really small. Sensor and internals are same as the E-M5. Takes all the same lenses. I recommend the optional larger grip, it's inexpensive. If you don't want to carry a bag, you can pull off the viewfinder and lens, put on a body cap, and the body easily fits in a pocket, lens + viewfinder in another pocket...

How bizarre. "Best" in what way? How to judge when so different?– Is this Ford better than that Pepsi?– Maybe this movie is better than that pasta sauce?– Or perhaps this washing powder trumps that alarm clock?

"Best of the best camera" — across cameras of totally different applications, use, design paradigms and concepts for entirely different end goals — is an equally absurd attempt as choosing just one gold medalist at the Olympics to be "the best sports person of the Olympics". It is totally denigrating and mind-numbing.